Back to it…
Is it a typo or why doesn’t BB take 2-hits anymore?
I think increasing DD’s attack just because SS is present is flawed. It would be strange when 3 DDs attack 3 DDs + 1 SS. The attacking DDs gains an edge for no reason. I think every 1 DD nullifies 1 SS’s abilities and thats good enough.
Yep we’ve talked about that too.
We haven’t considered for artillery though.
So artillery carried by trucks?
Imperious Leader is getting B.Andersson to help with the project.
This is what he sugguested from the other thread.
@B.:
Shore Bombardment
In an amphibious assault…For each support shot one must put ashore one land unit
This is good. It gets rid of the strange situation where one off-loads one troop and bombard with 5 battleships against the defender…
Defend is upset “what a stupid game why do I have to send all my forces to the shore just because of 1 troop…!@#$%”
However I note that nothing logically can prevent a battlehsip from firing just because of a small amphibious attack force.
Maybe it should be damage capped to number of attacking land units. This is to model defender sending sufficient defending forces to the shore to expose them to shore bombardment.
I’ve made some changes. Opinions?
Russia’s “buy 2 armor units for 8 IPCs” is fine I think.
Germany’s “pays 6 IPCs for each sub” is fine I think.
UK’s “pays 10 IPCs for each destroyer” is fine I think.
player automatically collects 4 IPCs before the battle takes place and adds it to the rest of his IPCs.
What are you trying to model? Kamikaze fighters can be stripped down before setting off? 4 IPC is a lot too.
but they only have half the number of moves as a regular Japanese fighter
I don’t understand why you reducing the range of kamikaze.
US only pays 13 IPCs for each CV and every CV can move 3 per turn.
That would be the rapid building of light carriers made from cruiser hull? Then it should be cheaper but only take 1 hit. And it shouldn’t move faster. Maybe put a US marker underit to denote.
@Imperious:
All three land units are the “rock, paper, sissors” of the game…too much of a departure from what axis and allies players would accept IMO.
Its not much of a “scissors paper rock” really and its too earlier to say what people can accept but yeah.
- Radar= Every AA gun unit can be used to detect 1 enemy sub in an adjacent SZ on a roll of 4 or less
Submarines are detected by sonar not radar? Coastal defense is not about sub I think.
- Long-range aircraft= All your fighters move 6….Whenever any of your bombers get shot down you have a choice of either (a) paying 10 IPCs and losing the ability of bombing the enemy in that same turn
This built-in esort fighters model is great. But I think all bombers should have it. Or “long-range aircraft” tech needs a change of name. 10 IPC is the cost of a whole fighter piece, maybe it should be 5 IPCs?
- Jet Fighters= Your AA gun units hit enemy air units on a 1 or 2.
I think only if you have fighters in that territory.
- Heavy Bombers= Enemy AA gun units detect your bombers at half the number that they would otherwise detect them
I don’t understand why heavy bombers are harder to detect!
Each tech roll still costs 5 IPCs. No nation may spend more than half their IPCs in the Technology Development phase of that turn.
Good call.
Reasoning: No unit should be able to move 8 spaces (go halfway around the world) and participate in combat while doing so.
Sounds good.
@Imperious:
The AA gun rolls one time for every three planes, so 5 planes it rolls just once.
Why “every three planes”? I was thinking more like “up to three planes” because AA has limited time to fire before the enemy planes go out of sight. Remember how I said “every three planes” model has the proportional aspect which is not accurate?
And its great we let up to3 AA fire.
No techs:
AA gun rolls to target on a 1 or 2.
If successful, roll to hit on a 1.
Whats this target/detect thing?
Does it apply to SBR only?
What happens when we have SBR AND land combat?
If we say that Russia has to spend about half their money per turn on armor to only save 2 IPCs, it’s not going to be worth it. They’ll lose too much on defense. The packages need to be made up of no more than 2 units to be effective.
Yeah thats a compromise.
Another “strange situation”. As we try to model mass production unrealistic things appear. Looking at the production numbers you posted, I am wondering if Russia is incorrectly modelled as 24 IPCs in OOB. Then again they didn’t really make a naval.
I think there needs to be the perception of a level playing field amongst all players while still being true to history.
If you said level of playing field I would say it doesn’t depending on equal number of NAs and stuff.
As for “perception” of level playing field are we taking “nation specific unit costs” off the table :wink:
Japan=fighters (justify fighters because kamikazes were cheaper than other fighters)
I buy this one more than transports. Kamikazes are not used often enough in OOB, sugguesting incorrect modelling. Actually its probably because of “oil” but thats also on the table already.
A naval fighter? Does this mean we are having more than 1 type of fighter unit per nation? This can be real good when we add more units in a latter phase, but we’re trying to avoid new units for phase 1.
Just to add. I think the fighters’ bombs and torpedos are refitted easy enough to not include naval fighter.
so IMO we should change it back to a limit of 2 armor per turn.
Yes there should be a limit to all the bonuses. Don’t want any strange situations.
Yep we have mechanized infantry on the table.
As for railroads thats like infrastructure not technology. I think everyone had railroads.
Maybe have it as a special figure of certain territories.
But I feel an Artillery division/corp should be able to hold on its own.
I think 12 IPC is just a starting point. A number this “other” varient used.
We’ve already got numbers on the equipment and supplies to Russia posted by someone.
Now we just need economic numbers of Russia.
Great to see its planned out.
I actually like all NAs active.
Unless we find historic resource constraints otherwise or something.
Oh we don’t have to worry about making same no. of NAs.
Balance is not achieved via no. of NAs.
At this stage balance needs only be looked at loosely.
Because even if we tried to we won’t do a good job.
Its difficult to anticipate as AAR is no where as realistic/detailed/strategic/fun… 8-)
@Imperious:
AS for how the lend lease is carried i feel it should be secret that some transports will have to be ferried to archangel carrying an undisclosed amount of aid with each transport able to carry the entire 10 IPC cargo. So the trick is the axis will have to try to attack these not knowing what was written down before the tranny left eastern USA.
That would be beauty. The guessing.
If on the other hand it’s a large number (like 8 max), and intuitively that transport is either sunk or not, then the Allies lose either 0 IPCs or 8 IPCs. It looks like we got more of an all or nothing scenario instead of a certain fraction being sunk every turn.
Yeah all or nothing would be bad.
@Imperious:
HMMM thats correct and i was thinking of the need for one tranny to carry the goodies. I do also see problems with this rule…
Yeah its costly to dedicate transport for lend-lease. We could give them more transports but that could be overly powerful if all used to carry units. And sending subs or destroyers to support the convoy is probably a wrong scale. You don’t need a whole destroyer fleet (1 DD piece).
@Imperious:
OK idea for every axis sub in the atlantic the allies lose one IPC of aid to either the UK or Soviet player. That is simple and wont destroy all the aid. and also allows the germans the ability to do something.
Yeah we’ve probably reinvented the circle and now realise why OOB U-Boat interdiction rule is like what it is. Complexity.
Small improvement: several SZs to represent different convoy paths. So to preserve the proposed guessing game as it really enhances strategy. Decoy. Influencing military movements. US can send to Russia via North Altantic or North Pacific. While US can send to UK via one safe path.
@Imperious:
Also looking at the list the lend lease aid can only be armor or air units… no infantry. WE cant be sending men to Stalin to fight his war.
Actually lend-lease gives supplies and equipment no? Not pre-made divisions or corps.
So I think they can spend the lend-lease IPC anyway they like.
@HMS:
We can’t forget that ground forces normally had some heavy AA (in British forces these were often a Brigade of 3.7s attached at Corps level).
Hey hey thats more than what you are saying in the Units thread. AA at Corps level? Really?
I reckon we need anti-tank artillery units anyway (cheap, good in defence against tanks, bad against infantry)
Its going to be complicated to have different attacking value against different units. Its like the phase 1 draft destroyer having stronger attack when enemy contains sub. Its weird when 3 DDs attack 3 DDs + 1 SS.
Out of interest, considering the duration of a turn (3 months) the fact that planes have to reload is not all that serious.
Yeah it won’t be strangely powerful provided do the 3 turn thing to model how planes are powerful but can’t fight for extended periods of time.
One problem with the above change is that now there’s a big jump in cost of those Axis units (3 IPCs difference). This can actually have the opposite of the intended effect in that Germany is less likely to build more than 1 sub per turn because they save 3 IPCs by holding off on the 2nd sub purchase until the next turn.
Yeah. Like I said its going to be weird if we take shortcuts like this and not model mass production.
I vote for package cost. Like “2 U-Boats 14” for and “3 T34s for 13”.
By the way there is historic basis for cheap Japanese transports right?
Otherwise lets not add rules in just for “completeness” among the powers.
Hey you two don’t get carried away :lol:
Forget other games. You started this mod to fix things. Not to meet the mass market.
Forget “cool”. Lets contine your arguement on historic basis.
So how much freedom are we giving Russia and Italy.
My interpretation of what it is so far…Russia gets to choose what to do with IPCs from US but has to spend time building them? Italy gets to use units from Germany straight away?
For our main version of historic accuracy the list of NAs could be quite short. What could happen: Radar shouldn’t be restricted to UK and become a tech option…Lend-lease is going to be standard…Convoy raid would sort of displace U-boat interdiction…
But thats normal and realistic.
If we’re going to have options like that, then all options in a certain category don’t all have to be introduced in the same phase.
We’ll have to structure our phases well if we were to have multiple versions.
Or lets not get carried away and just focus on our dream historic version.
Trimmed down options are just something on the side IMO.
Its particularly useful in the pacific. You bomb the troops with fighters/bombers and then land with transports.
Though this would be interesting if Japan’s dug-in defenders tunnel network has some sort of advantage in defence against air strikes.
@HMS:
Yep. In September '43, about a million people (many of them kids and women, though) were mannintg German AA defences, which used 8,876 of the superb “88” anti-tank/ant-aircraft guns, and 24,500 light AA guns and 7,000 searchlights.
Quote the article too so I can hope for the AA piece to remain hehe :lol:
Though I doubt much of the 1 millon kids and women were on the frontline. Probably mostly at ICs/cities.
@Imperious:
++++++++ so your saying to use a new piece for AA guns? or use the same piece with a “mark” on the aa gun so it can be used as something else?
No I just hope to use the original AA gun piece.
++++++++ well aa guns can be installed anywhere… i proposed before that in every home territory or in just VC territories their could be an aa gun defense during any flyover of enemy planes. we dont need some unit to represent this do we?
Nope I am sugguesting a little chip placed under the IC to represent this. But thats only necessary if you buy my argument that you should be allowed to beef up defenses at ICs.
++++++++I was think along the same lines except this would be the difference in factories vs. VC territories, one being a heavy concentration, while the other being lighter elements of AA flak batteries. I just dont know why these rules regarding aa guns need a damm PIECE, BECAUSE they are largely fixed deployments. the piece to me only represents the idea that the gun can be moved and i dont feel thats enough of a reason to commit to a “piece”
Oh thats from my funny idea of turning it on the side when first built to show its not deployed yet and can’t fire. You then move it in non-combat to the front line and deploy them by turning upright. I guess alternatively we can use something else to show its movement and deployment from the IC to the frontline.
++++++++++The trick is whether or not these flak battleries represent a major cost that can be (or should be) brought into the same level as say a “panzer corps” or a major fleet of destroyers… is the cost something that is on the same level as major military expenditures?
Yeap I haven’t forgotten your arguement that its not at corps level. I hope its not too bad I mean ICs can’t be moved and we have a piece for it too. I am just thinking that AA can be used as a new piece shouldn’t be part of the arguement as we are gonna need more than one since we are introducing several units.
